MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Orders Declaring Petitioner a Proclaimed Person, Procedural Defect

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Arun Monga, has quashed the orders declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person. The court found that the petitioner had not been duly served and that the statutory requirements were not fulfilled.

The case pertained to a petition filed by M/s APG Marketings and another, seeking the quashing of an order summoning them through a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and another order declaring them proclaimed persons under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C.

Justice Arun Monga, in the oral judgment, stated, “Having perused the record, it is not borne out as to how the petitioners were duly served before initiating proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. Such a recourse is not sustainable in law... Further, it appears that 30 days’ time, as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not granted.”

The court acknowledged the argument put forth by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Rajesh Gupta, that the petitioner firm had ceased to exist prior to the pandemic due to heavy losses and that the petitioners were never served with warrants.

Based on the lack of evidence of proper service and non-compliance with the statutory requirements, the court held that the impugned orders could not be sustained. The judgment concluded by quashing the orders and directing that further proceedings continue in the lower court in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 03.07.2023

M/s APG Marketings and another  vs M/s Surya Polyvin Ltd. And another     

Latest Legal News